The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted regular bail to an accused in a case involving allegations under Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), emphasizing the absence of medical or forensic evidence and the completion of investigation as key factors. The judgment underscores the importance of objective evidence in bail considerations and the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 when trial delays are anticipated.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nitin Bhati, was accused in FIR No. 205 dated 29.04.2026 registered at Police Station Sector 65, Gurugram, under Sections 74/115(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS (later amended to include Sections 191(1)/191(2)/126(2)/123 of BNS, corresponding to Sections 354/323/506/146/147/341/328 of the IPC). The complainant alleged that she was offered a drink at Elite 66 Club, after which she felt dizzy and suspected intoxication. She further claimed that the petitioner, allegedly the club owner, touched her inappropriately despite her objections, and that female bouncers assaulted her and her friends while her mobile phone was confiscated. She was also allegedly wrongfully restrained and threatened.
Key Facts
- 29.04.2026: FIR registered based on the complainant's allegations
- 15.05.2026: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- The complainant refused to undergo medical examination, and no forensic or medical evidence was collected to establish the administration of an intoxicating substance
- CCTV footage and DVR of the alleged incident were handed over to the jurisdictional police authorities by the petitioner
- The petitioner denied ownership of the club, claiming he was merely an employee
- The petitioner has no past criminal antecedents and is considered to have strong roots in society
Procedural History
- 29.04.2026: FIR registered under relevant sections of BNS/IPC
- 15.05.2026: Petitioner arrested and detained
- 26.06.2026: Present bail petition (CRM-M-34388-2026) filed under Section 483 of the BNS before the Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Investigation completed: Final report under Section 193 of the BNSS (earlier Section 173 CrPC) presented before the concerned court
- Trial progress: Minimal progress reported at the time of bail hearing
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail during trial, contending:
- False implication in the case
- Lack of forensic or medical evidence to support the allegations under Section 123 BNS
- Completion of investigation and submission of the final report
- No risk of flight or tampering with evidence
- Prolonged detention without trial progress violates Article 21 of the Constitution
The Legal Issue
The primary legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNS in the absence of medical or forensic evidence to support the allegations under Section 123 of the BNS, particularly when the investigation was complete and trial progress was minimal.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner was falsely implicated and was not the owner of the club but merely an employee
- No medical or forensic evidence existed to prove the administration of an intoxicating substance, as the complainant refused medical examination
- CCTV footage and DVR had already been handed over to the police, eliminating the need for custodial interrogation
- The petitioner had been in custody since 15.05.2026 and had no criminal antecedents, posing no flight risk
- The investigation was complete, and the final report under Section 193 BNSS had been submitted
- Prolonged detention without trial progress would violate the petitioner's right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
For the Respondent
- The petitioner was specifically named in the FIR, and specific allegations had been levelled against him
- The gravity of the offence and the nature of the allegations warranted denial of bail
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a balancing exercise between the right to liberty of the accused and the interests of justice, particularly in light of the absence of objective evidence and the completion of investigation. Key observations included:
-
Lack of Forensic Evidence: The Court noted that there was no medical or forensic evidence to attract the offence under Section 123 of the BNS, as the complainant had refused medical examination. This absence of objective proof weakened the prosecution's case.
-
Completion of Investigation: The Court emphasized that the investigation was complete, and the final report under Section 193 BNSS had been submitted. This reduced the necessity for custodial interrogation.
-
Custody Duration: The petitioner had been in custody since 15.05.2026, and the trial had not made significant progress. The Court observed that keeping the petitioner in detention without the prospect of an early trial conclusion would violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
-
No Flight Risk: The petitioner was a first-time offender with strong roots in society, and there was no indication that he posed a flight risk or would tamper with evidence.
-
Trial Stage Considerations: The Court clarified that the culpability of the petitioner would be determined during trial and that its observations were not an expression of opinion on merits. This ensured that the trial court would proceed without prejudice.
"The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
The Verdict
The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the bail petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on regular bail during trial. The petitioner was directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, ensuring that the trial court would proceed without prejudice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Absence of Forensic Evidence Weakens Prosecution's Case
- Courts may favor bail when the prosecution fails to produce medical or forensic evidence, particularly in cases involving allegations of intoxication or physical assault
- Practitioners should emphasize gaps in evidence during bail hearings, especially when the complainant refuses medical examination or when CCTV/DVR footage is already submitted
Investigation Completion as a Ground for Bail
- Completion of investigation and submission of the final report under Section 193 BNSS can be a strong ground for bail, as custodial interrogation is no longer necessary
- Defense counsel should highlight delays in trial progress and argue that prolonged detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution
Right to Liberty Outweighs Allegations Without Proof
- Courts are increasingly sensitive to prolonged detention without trial progress, particularly when the accused has no criminal antecedents and poses no flight risk
- The judgment reinforces that bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of allegations when objective evidence is lacking and investigation is complete
